Wiki

Members

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.
Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!

Just over a year ago Smashboards launched the BBR-RC, afterwards renamed the Unity Ruleset Committee (URC), as an endeavor and experiment to see if a standard ruleset could be created for Brawl. While the original idea was one worth striving for, it has been decided by the Senate that the URC has run its course. The URC created and maintained the most commonly used ruleset for Brawl up till now, being used at over 150 tournaments since its inception. However, it has become increasingly apparent just how difficult it is to create a 'unified' or 'standard' ruleset for Brawl. Taking decisive stances on controversial issues like the MK ban and stage list made apparent how split the community still is and as a result lowered usage of the ruleset. The varied regions, territories, and even states in North America are too far apart ideologically for the Senate to believe further progress is possible.

The topic with the Unity ruleset will no longer be featured prominently, but will be kept intact for those tournaments that still link to it. While the Unity ruleset won’t be updated anymore, there is a possibility that the BBR will go back to doing recommended rulesets. More importantly, it is up to individual TOs to decide what is best for their events.

Large events and nationals tend to cater to the community anyways, even when the URC did exist. Justified or not it isnt a bad way to create a ruleset all things considered, and certainly beneficial for community growth which is rather important at this point in time.

Can't say I'm disappointed or anything. I didn't really like the direction the URC was going.

Not trying to sound heartless, its just my honest opinion.

Click to expand...

While I have no ill will towards the individual members of the Unity Ruleset Committee, the URC was unquestionably one of the worst things in the history of the Smash community. The URC's attempt to remove decision-making power from Regions and Tournament Organizers by forcing a "standard" ruleset was completely counter to the core of our game/community and did nothing but further alienate and disrupt the scene.

I can't wait to return to a recommended ruleset instead of an enforced one. The power should always be in the hands of the community, not a committee.

The committee was made up entirely of tournament organizers, so 'removing power from tournament organizers' would essentially have been impossible, since the net effect would simply have gone to other tournament organizers.

I fully expect to see much of the Unity Ruleset to continue to be copied and pasted for a long time to come, because aside from stances on controversial issues, it provides a clear and well-put-together template for TOs to then make changes too.

The URC could not have disrupted things anymore than they already were: at least 30% of tournaments in the last year ran with the Unity Ruleset - before that you would be hard pressed to find even 10% of tournaments running the same ruleset.

So, yes, I will question your unquestionable statement that the URC was one of the "worst things in the history of the smash community", and this is coming from someone who both started the URC and also as part of the Senate moved to disband it.

While I have no ill will towards the individual members of the Unity Ruleset Committee, the URC was unquestionably one of the worst things in the history of the Smash community. The URC's attempt to remove decision-making power from Regions and Tournament Organizers by forcing a "standard" ruleset was completely counter to the core of our game/community and did nothing but further alienate and disrupt the scene.

I can't wait to return to a recommended ruleset instead of an enforced one. The power should always be in the hands of the community, not a committee.

Click to expand...

What?
The URS WAS, IS and always WILL be a recommended ruleset. Nobody was forced to do anything. Just because it had it's own link on the home page of SWF, doesn't mean it wasn't recommended.

The only thing that might make it seem like it was forced was the fact that, at first, non-Unity tournies couldn't get stickied unless they were also Melee/64 tournies. But this was a decision made by the Senate of SWF, NOT the URC, and was made before the URC even existed (or at least, this is what I've been told). And the rule was later abolished with even URC members speaking out against it.

URC wasn't recommended. It was FORCED. "you don't use this you won't be stickied", and having half the major TOs join that group and agree to it after BBR failed on the same issues many times yet half the members were the same? Coincidence? No they failed with BBR so they got members they knew would vote that way and then only allowed them in, it's just as corrupt as BBR is with voting new members in, EXCEPT THEY GOT TO START FRESH with a new group of people where they can pick and choose who to let in to make it even more corrupt. I've been back there since the beginning and saw everything. It was definitely bad and forced. If it truely was a "recommended" ruleset, it wouldn't have been forced. That's tyranny.

I read the thread, and have been following BBR since it was called MBR for melee, and I've been on there every week for 4 years, so I know what's going on. It's everybody else that doesn't which I am trying to expose. I could get several of my friends who used to be in there to back up my statements if I need to also. Bbl though, class is starting right now (I take 6 classes a week).

What?
The URS WAS, IS and always WILL be a recommended ruleset. Nobody was forced to do anything. Just because it had it's own link on the home page of SWF, doesn't mean it wasn't recommended.

The only thing that might make it seem like it was forced was the fact that, at first, non-Unity tournies couldn't get stickied unless they were also Melee/64 tournies. But this was a decision made by the Senate of SWF, NOT the URC, and was made before the URC even existed (or at least, this is what I've been told). And the rule was later abolished with even URC members speaking out against it.

Oook... So I was in the BBR when this was announced to them (i.e. before it was announced to the public). The forced stickies bit was in the works as the URC was being established. It made it onto the first revision released to the public and stayed there for some amount of time.

If it got removed at some point, great. However, you cannot claim that it was always recommended.

If you feel that it wasn't recommended because of the sticky rule, and that it was forced, then fine. But keep in mind that it wasn't the URC 'forcing' people to use it, it was the Senate of SWF, as they made the decision on the sticky rule.

For the record, the BBR ended up never having to do much with the URC outside of some interactions. Completely separate groups, which the name change should have made apparent. The overlap in membership wasn't even that large, not even half the URC members was in both groups.

Oook... So I was in the BBR when this was announced to them (i.e. before it was announced to the public). The forced stickies bit was in the works as the URC was being established. It made it onto the first revision released to the public and stayed there for some amount of time.

If it got removed at some point, great. However, you cannot claim that it was always recommended.

It had little bearing on small local communities. Larger communities that use this site more than AiB were affected more. The principal still stands though. A potential tool for drastically improving your tournament's viability was withheld in favor of forcing a rule set.

If you feel that it wasn't recommended because of the sticky rule, and that it was forced, then fine. But keep in mind that it wasn't the URC 'forcing' people to use it, it was the Senate of SWF, as they made the decision on the sticky rule.

For the record, the BBR ended up never having to do much with the URC outside of some interactions. Completely separate groups, which the name change should have made apparent. The overlap in membership wasn't even that large, not even half the URC members was in both groups.

Click to expand...

Yep, this is very true. The announcement I'm referencing was pretty much the URC announcing their existence and separation from the BBR. The BBR subsequently raged pretty hard.

For the record, the BBR ended up never having to do much with the URC outside of some interactions. Completely separate groups, which the name change should have made apparent. The overlap in membership wasn't even that large, not even half the URC members was in both groups.

Click to expand...

I didn't like that and would have prefered the groups worked far more hand in hand with each other but eh, not much people can do anymore.

As far as I know, no. Like I said, I've been told (by ESAM, ftr. I believe he was in the URC during the earlier part of its lifespan) that the sticky rule was made before the URC even existed. That, and, like I said, even URC members voted against keeping the sticky rule at the last vote held (the one that resulted in the sticky rule being abolished). I don't think anyone in the URC wanted to keep the sticky rule active.

Edit: If I'm providing any false information and somebody wants to correct it (Mike Haze be lurkin', yo) please do so.

It had little bearing on small local communities. Larger communities that use this site more than AiB were affected more. The principal still stands though. A potential tool for drastically improving your tournament's viability was withheld in favor of forcing a ruleset.

As far as I know, no. Like I said, I've been told (by ESAM, ftr. I believe he was in the URC during the earlier part of its lifespan) that the sticky rule was made before the URC even existed. That, and, like I said, even URC members voted against keeping the sticky rule at the last vote held (the one that resulted in the sticky rule being abolished). I don't think anyone in the URC wanted to keep the sticky rule active.

Edit: If I'm providing any false information and somebody wants to correct it (Mike Haze be lurkin', yo) please do so.

Click to expand...

So the stick rule was in place as it was being established, and it was abolished near the end of the URC's lifespan. This implies that the URC always had the power to abolish this rule. The responsibility for the rule's persistence in it's early days must then fall upon the URC itself.

Really though, I'm just trying to establish that the sticky rule was a thing, and that it may have tried to force the change. I may not agree with everything M2K says, but it's really stupid that everyone treats him like a nutjob.

It had little bearing on small local communities. Larger communities that use this site more than AiB were affected more. The principal still stands though. A potential tool for drastically improving your tournament's viability was withheld in favor of forcing a rule set.

Click to expand...

If I were a TO, I would prefer to try an compromise with other TOs to run a similar ruleset.

Though again, just because a larger majority ran unity at one point still didn't force it on you or others. It was in the end still recommended.

I'd imagine that it was the Senate that decides whether to have a vote on it in the first place (and not everyone in the URC is in the Senate, though I think AZ is) and the vote was held amongst the Senate, perhaps with URC members voicing their opinions on the side.

If I were a TO, I would prefer to try an compromise with other TOs to run a similar ruleset.

Though again, just because a larger majority ran unity at one point still didn't force it on you or others. It was in the end still recommended.

Click to expand...

If a sticky meant the difference between "enough people attending for the attention of a sponsor" and "just another event", I'd imagine it'd feel pretty much forced. I.E. it matters to big events more.

I also want to see data for your claim that most TO's ran this ruleset or one of it's officially sanction varieties. "Most" being more than 50% of all events.

Regarding the Senate and such: The URC came about at a time when Smashboards had a General Manager (JV) who was capable of making decisions. JV stepped down in 2011 and the Senate has slowly been making more and more decisions. There is a temp. GM (Xiivi) but, and I can't speak completely for Xiivi, the feeling has always been we are waiting for someone to officially be appointed to the position of head of Smashboards - right now, as has been the case for at least the past 6 months or so, the Senate is essentially running the decision making of Smashboards.

Regarding the Senate and such: The URC came about at a time when Smashboards had a General Manager (JV) who was capable of making decisions. JV stepped down in 2011 and the Senate has slowly been making more and more decisions. There is a temp. GM (Xiivi) but, and I can't speak completely for Xiivi, the feeling has always been we are waiting for someone to officially be appointed to the position of head of Smashboards - right now, as has been the cast for at least the past 6 months or so, the Senate is essentially running the decision making of Smashboards.

Click to expand...

What is your primary source? FOUND IT (at the bottom, stating only SWF was used). Yeah, I'd look into AiB sources as well... some communities only use that. I did a ctrl-F for "Oregon", which never uses URC rules, and found zero results. I'm also curious as to if you had a size restriction on your search, as that would introduce a bias towards larger events while ignoring the small events that represent most people's start in the community.

I don't mean to attack a person's work, but I also don't want false information being spread around. I heard a 30% figure tossed out for the percentage of use for this ruleset, and from an intuition standpoint, I'd say that sounds right.

The clarification on the senate is appreciated, though I wonder about the first URC's opinion on the sticky rule. If they opposed it strongly enough, did they try and stop the rule from coming to pass?

Okay, so
Was it the Senate that decided that only Unity tournies could get stickied?
Was it the Senate that decided when the vote (whether to keep/abolish the sticky rule) would be held? Was it only Senate members that were capable of voting? How did the URC affect this decision?

1. The senate did not decide on the Unity sticky at first (GM of Smashboards did), but it would have been bad form for the senate to immediately make changes that a former GM had put in place.
2. Yes, it was the senate deciding when to rescind the sticky policy
3. The URC was essentially mixed but I feel a majority did not care for the sticky policy, it was more grief causing then benefit giving, since stickies are already extremely rule guarded and hard to get anyways.

Tuen: i used the tournament calendar because: 1) many AiB tournaments are simply mirrored on Smashboards, Smashboards easily has the most promotion on-the-whole, 2) Its way easier since you just click the calendar and scroll through and can immediately identify what tournaments are happening when and with what ruleset (you will see the pain once you try to go through AiB) and 3) Many AiB tournaments don't post their rulesets whereas practically every single Smashboards tournament does.

I can't wait to return to a recommended ruleset instead of an enforced one. The power should always be in the hands of the community, not a committee.

Click to expand...

The power was always in the hands of the community, we constantly looked at what the community wanted, not that we always sided with the community, but it was definitely a factor in our decisions. Unity 3.0 was most likely about to be voted into affect where we'd look at tournament deviations from the URS and make that deviation optional for a period of time and then we'd vote on it to make it standard afterward giving more power to the community.

The BBR recommended ruleset was terrible and probably will always be terrible.

URC wasn't recommended. It was FORCED. "you don't use this you won't be stickied", and having half the major TOs join that group and agree to it after BBR failed on the same issues many times yet half the members were the same? Coincidence? No they failed with BBR so they got members they knew would vote that way and then only allowed them in, it's just as corrupt as BBR is with voting new members in, EXCEPT THEY GOT TO START FRESH with a new group of people where they can pick and choose who to let in to make it even more corrupt. I've been back there since the beginning and saw everything. It was definitely bad and forced. If it truely was a "recommended" ruleset, it wouldn't have been forced. That's tyranny.

Click to expand...

lmfao, at least for the time I was in the group no one not voted for someone to get accepted just because their ideologies differed from someone. The sticky rule was abandoned some time ago, get with the times and your head out of your ***.

1. The senate did not decide on the Unity sticky at first (GM of Smashboards did), but it would have been bad form for the senate to immediately make changes that a former GM had put in place.
2. Yes, it was the senate deciding when to rescind the sticky policy
3. The URC was essentially mixed but I feel a majority did not care for the sticky policy, it was more grief causing then benefit giving, since stickies are already extremely rule guarded and hard to get anyways.

Tuen: i used the tournament calendar because: 1) many AiB tournaments are simply mirrored on Smashboards, Smashboards easily has the most promotion on-the-whole, 2) Its way easier since you just click the calendar and scroll through and can immediately identify what tournaments are happening when and with what ruleset (you will see the pain once you try to go through AiB) and 3) Many AiB tournaments don't post their rulesets whereas practically every single Smashboards tournament does.

Click to expand...

I'll look into it and do my best. I have worked with their calendar once before, so I know what you're talking about. I just find that a representative sample is more important than the annoyance presented by the calendar. It'll be a while before I get to it though... I still have a PhD to get :-p. Thanks for the level discussion.

lmfao, at least for the time I was in the group no one not voted for someone to get accepted just because their ideologies differed from someone. The sticky rule was abandoned some time ago, get with the times and your head out of your ***.

Click to expand...

Speaking of level discussion. This is the opposite. You're type of behavior is probably more damaging to the community than the fractional change caused by varying rulesets and authoritative decision making.

You're in a position of power on this site. One may argue that the power is superfluous, or that it doesn't matter because it's just a video game. However, there's still an example to be set. Try to set a good one.